News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Ran and Tom started by talking about the Confidential Guide, but we quickly moved into topics in GCA.  It was great fun and they really got in depth into their thoughts.  Hopefully we can reconvene again before the Masters and U.S. Open as well. 

http://golfnewsradio.com/page/2/

Enjoy:)
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Bill Crane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ran and Tom Doak Were Terrific Discussing Architecture on my Radio Show
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2015, 11:48:34 PM »
I have tried to launch this from two different computers and it will not play.

Do you have to grant GNN your E Mail and sign up to access??

Wm Flynnfan
_________________________________________________________________
( s k a Wm Flynnfan }

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
It's working perfectly. Just click the little triangle.  And no, you don't have to sign up or give any info at all.  Just click and play.

You can also try here, where you can get my interview with John Sanford and his work on Ferry Point as a bonus:) http://golfnewsradio.com/category/jaysplays/
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 01:06:01 AM by Jay Flemma »
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Nice one Jay, but it hurt my ears.  I would turn the sound up to hear what Tom was saying but then you would speak and the room would shake.
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jay

Thanks for the link...good show. 

I was especially interested in Ran's comment concerning shorter courses.  He thought that in this cycle of a second Golden Age that more courses around the 6100-6500 yard mark would be built.  It wasn't mentioned, but this ties in with Ran's comments that golf has to become cheaper if it is to be sustainable (I gather Ran really means private courses or perhaps well design publics).  To some degree I too am surprised that there haven't been more visionaries in this regard...that is truly focusing designs on the handicap player.  On the other hand, I fully realize that to "cut back" design m.o. from 7000 to 6500 yards is quite statement for parties involved in a project.  Afterall, we look at Cabot Links and it is 6850 from the tips...

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jay Flemma

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'll tell you who was also terrific on the show about shorter courses - Pat Mucci! He talked a lot about shorter courses, more interesting greens, and better movement in the Earth.

Also I think we have solved the volume issue going forward - I have a new phone ;D

Ran wins the "best joke of the year so far" award for his story about his Dad!  (Well Ran and Bruce's son:):)  "You better move!"
Mackenzie, MacRayBanks, Maxwell, Doak, Dye, Strantz. @JayGolfUSA, GNN Radio Host of Jay's Plays www.cybergolf.com/writerscorner

Patrick_Mucci

Sean A,

While we talk about shorter courses, and extoll their virtues, the rest of the golfing world seems to be going in the opposite direction.

How long is Tiger's newest course ?

Patrick_Mucci

Jay,

Thanks for the compliment, I enjoyed the interview.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jay

Thanks for the link...good show. 

I was especially interested in Ran's comment concerning shorter courses.  He thought that in this cycle of a second Golden Age that more courses around the 6100-6500 yard mark would be built.  It wasn't mentioned, but this ties in with Ran's comments that golf has to become cheaper if it is to be sustainable (I gather Ran really means private courses or perhaps well design publics).  To some degree I too am surprised that there haven't been more visionaries in this regard...that is truly focusing designs on the handicap player.  On the other hand, I fully realize that to "cut back" design m.o. from 7000 to 6500 yards is quite statement for parties involved in a project.  Afterall, we look at Cabot Links and it is 6850 from the tips...


Ciao

Sean,

I was also impressed with Ran's comments. So far as I can see, very few golfers need more than 6,500 and 6,100 or 6,200 would be sufficient for the vast majority. Also, Ran is dead on regarding the cost issue. American golf went in the wrong direction 20-25 years ago.
Tim Weiman

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jay

Thanks for the link...good show. 

I was especially interested in Ran's comment concerning shorter courses.  He thought that in this cycle of a second Golden Age that more courses around the 6100-6500 yard mark would be built.  It wasn't mentioned, but this ties in with Ran's comments that golf has to become cheaper if it is to be sustainable (I gather Ran really means private courses or perhaps well design publics).  To some degree I too am surprised that there haven't been more visionaries in this regard...that is truly focusing designs on the handicap player.  On the other hand, I fully realize that to "cut back" design m.o. from 7000 to 6500 yards is quite statement for parties involved in a project.  Afterall, we look at Cabot Links and it is 6850 from the tips...


Ciao

Sean,

I was also impressed with Ran's comments. So far as I can see, very few golfers need more than 6,500 and 6,100 or 6,200 would be sufficient for the vast majority. Also, Ran is dead on regarding the cost issue. American golf went in the wrong direction 20-25 years ago.

Tim

Perhaps shorter courses will remain a product of less space.  Then developers have to start looking at 100- 125 acre properties in the light of is it enough to get the job done and still make money/attract membership. 

Patrick

Yes, I agree shorter isn't well perceived...but I also think its a marketing problem...and that is solvable.

Jay

Sure, shorter courses can be about more interesting terrain and topsy turvy greens, but I think it is equally important to create balanced hazard styles which are more meaningfully and efficiently placed.  If we are to create more sustainable golf on smaller properties, all three elements must come together.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

BCowan

I much enjoyed the interview.  I liked Tom's story regarding the 9 hole course he walked while waiting for a traffic jam.  The amount of variety the course had through his descriptions was nice.  Also the point that golden age archies used quirky natural features by seeking them out vs bulldozing them in more recent years. 

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sean,

I was also impressed with Ran's comments. So far as I can see, very few golfers need more than 6,500 and 6,100 or 6,200 would be sufficient for the vast majority. Also, Ran is dead on regarding the cost issue. American golf went in the wrong direction 20-25 years ago.

"American golf", if there is such a thing, simply followed the money.

The money will continue to stratify golf (and the rest of the economy).

Too bad most will never understand why.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
George:

I will always appreciate Geoff Shackelford quoting me in his book on the future of golf: "golfers want to play more, not pay more".

This is the point I want to make and, I think, Ran was alluding to. The country club for a day thing seemed appealing (circa 1990s), but really was the wrong direction for the game, certainly much different than what I observed during my first trips to Ireland and Scotland in the 1980s.

I remember one day walking on one of Cleveland's Metropark courses (Big Met). I got fixed up with a guy visiting relatives who mentioned he was going to find it harder to play.

Why, I asked him?

He proceeded to tell me his local course was increasing green fees from $27 to $36 and he was afraid he couldn't justify it anymore. Very middle class guy, a postal worker. His sentiment really stood out for me.
Tim Weiman

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
I really fear that many folks on this web site don't fully appreciate your experience with that fellow, Tim.   I play a county run municipal facility that by most people I know from GCA who appreciate good golf course design, would say our county golf course is very good.  Playing in the men's club there, I see many local golfers of varied skills.  We have a modest green fee schedule by comparison to like facilities and many privately owned, open to the public - daily fee courses in the local and regional area. 

Yet, I have personally heard from several avid and regular golfers of modest income means, who have always enjoyed golf as their go-to affordable recreational activity, that they were going to cut back and even change regular venues just for a modest jump in green fees from $25-33.  A couple of these people have really nice neat golf games and skills.  One in particular who works on the support staff in administration of a local private college, a 5 handi, 40ish, married no kids, still plays but cut his playing times a month from about weekly to once or so a month and enters our men's club tournaments. 

Such a modest green fee increase, even though it was only one increase in some 10 years, and that was enough to put the guy off and cut back. 

This is a phenomenon that I believe is inescapable in that strata of the consumer economic picture.  If they want to grow the game, I think growth has to come from the average and more widespread lower income working class than the scarce 1%er crowd.  Working stiffs like to play golf too.  But, frequency of paying green fee rates and regularity of playing the game as recreation north of an hourly wage on that income level is perhaps a bridge too far.  Like Zorba says, 'wife, kids, mortgage - the full catastrophe'.   Those folks want to play more, not pay more... Best quote ever on GCA, IMHO.  ;D 8)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Dick Daley:

One reason the "play more, not pay more" concept is so important is the very nature of the game: to play it well, you have to play it often. And, playing it well makes it more likely a person will enjoy the game. So, if you want to grow the game, you have to be mindful of "play more, not pay more".
Tim Weiman

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Very good points, Tim.

I don't think most want others to play more. They only want to "grow" the game to the extent that it - the game - survives in the manner they care about - their club, their friends, the courses outside they visit, etc. If others can't "keep up", well, tough luck, they must not be doing things right...
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Very good points, Tim.

I don't think most want others to play more. They only want to "grow" the game to the extent that it - the game - survives in the manner they care about - their club, their friends, the courses outside they visit, etc. If others can't "keep up", well, tough luck, they must not be doing things right...

George,

I can understand and even appreciate the perspective you describe. My favorite place in the world of golf - not the course I would argue is the best architecture - is the Cashen course at Ballybunion. Part of what I have enjoyed about it so much is how often there would practically be nobody else out there. It was never like Oakmont on a mid summer Saturday afternoon.

But, that is not what growing the game is about, I don't think. I thought growing the game meant increasing participation. If that is the case, then the game in the US went in the wrong direction circa 1990s as Ran suggested.
Tim Weiman

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
George, while I sort of get your point, I am not sure I fully agree.  My impression based solely on observation primarily playing on the local sort of courses I play most often is that the vast majority of folks playing the game as recreation and trying to play as often as they can because they love the game, is an income strata that is not representative of the country club set.  I suspect, and have no data from a golf foundation sort of survey group, is that the majority of people who play 10 to 50 rounds a year are daily fee, muni, or even affordable CCFAD players.  As we do know, the Country Club privates are continuing to suffer membership decreases and are still out beating he bush in many cases for increased membership.  While private daily fee rounds are also not what the used to be, I think their are still more players by numbers playing daily fee, muni and lower non-private  venues. 

So, while you say that possibly the country club and private club or upper tier CCFAD resort players may think that it is just tough economic luck if the 'can't keep up',  I don't think that is the effective or operative way to look at it.  I think golf will die, if it isn't saved at the lower cost level.  As it dies due to costly play in time and perhaps money and regular players play less and less because they pay more and more, all the other supporting aspects of the game from suppliers of turf maintenance, professional and assistant pro activities, those that work designing and maintaining, and any other activity related to golf will dry up and that paucity of supporting acivity, along with the economy that underpins it, will dry up, and then it won't just be a matter of 'tough luck, if they can't keep up' as there will be little left to keep up with.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Enjoying listening to this. Some nice topics. One slight downside - 3 different volumn levels for 3 different talkers made listening a little complicated.

Mention by Ran of Newcastle-Aus reminded me to re-read this Courses by Country profile of a course that doesn't seem to get highlighted too often - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/australia/newcastle000110/  Seems like my kind of course.

atb